Sept. 7
There was a meeting in Kansas City recently featuring a number of prominent coaches and administrators. One of the discussion points involved the idea of coaches being referred to as "teacher/coaches." To me, when a guy is on the sideline, and you think about his overall responsibilities, he is a teacher/coach.

The coaches I have the highest respect for are pure teachers in every sense of the word.

The men I have the highest respect for are pure teachers in every sense of the word. From the moment the student-athlete enters college, the coach is playing a key role in that young man's life. He is an inspirational figure, an X-and-O person and someone who gets involved with the entire campus experience.

I don't think the phrase "teacher/coach" will change my feelings about coaches. I just wonder what it will do to open up criticism from other professors. They will scream loud and clear! Maybe coaches can join professors in a lower salary structure. Imagine if a professor asked to switch salaries!

A perfect example came in a recent letter to the editor in USA Today. Professor C. Richard Edwards from Purdue said, "I'm assuming that typical teacher salaries would replace those inflated coaching salaries. Those X's and O's would be replaced by instruction in fluid movement dynamics and precision sphere placement. Our prayers have been answered! They do care more about education than March Madness and money."

I think coaches are leaving themselves open for scrutiny, and that is unfortunate. But the intent is certainly positive. The desire to be recognized as more than just a coach dealing with X's and O's is understandable.

In the true sense of coaching, think about some of the giants who have strolled on the sidelines, men like John Thompson and Dean Smith. They were more than just X-and-O guys, just like the newest coaches to be named to the Hall of Fame, Mike Krzyzewski and John Chaney.

I don't think a new job description or title would change their status.